9/09/2009

Myth 210 - Singapore Govt's money is not the people's money?

Letter To The Wall Street Journal, 8 Sep 2009
Correcting Temasek Misperceptions
We wish to correct some fundamental misperceptions in your Aug. 31 editorial "Temasek's Revised Charter."
First, Temasek is an investment company set up as an asset owner to seek returns by taking investment risks. While our sole shareholder is the Singapore government, we are not a "fund," and do not manage Singapore "citizens' earnings." It is factually wrong to imply that Singaporeans have no choice but to "keep their money with the fund."
The above is part of a statement by Temasek's MD Corporate Affairs to the Wall Street Journal. To be specific, it says that it manages Singapore's govt's money and not Singapore "citizens' earnings". I am not sure if Singapore "citizens' earnings" is the same as Singapore citizens' money. As a layman, I think the citizens of Singapore will think or believe that the Govt's money is the citizens' money. But many in the forum have told me that this is not true.
I think the Govt's money are money from the Govt's income, including taxes, rentals, sales of land and properties, services etc. Technically, they are not the citizens's earnings but the Govt's earnings.
Let me offer another example to clarify this explanation. If I lend $1k to A and B lend the $1k to C, C is right to say that he is not spending my money. Cause he borrows it from B and is accountable to B.
So Temasek is managing the Govt's money, not the people's earnings. Right.

When the people (forcibly) give up their money to the govt (aka wealth transfer) it is a SUNKEN cost -- gone forever.

Solution: make as much money as you can and hang onto it for as long as you can or spend it however you want. There is no 100% way of avoiding the Legalised Theft and Extortion of the state, but you can take measures to protect yourself and your hard-earned money from it.

I'll stop there. I just spotted a buxom Malaysian uni student I need to talk to. She has lips that could suck the white off rice.

I think there is a popular misunderstanding of the concept of State. When Myrna says Temasek doesn't deal with citizen's earnings, she's right, because that would be true only when people actually pour their money into it, like they do with mutual funds.

Temasek is merely an arm of the State entrusted with investing the govt's money, which of course come from the people, companies, tourists, taxes, etc, etc. If you try to pinpoint the actual source of the funds, you'll end up nowhere because too many variables are involved.

This is similar to people assuming public servants are servants of the public and therefore answerable to them. They are not: they report to their superiors, who in turn are chosen by the govt, which is in turn chosen by the people. So, while a MIW is technically answerable to the voting public, a permanent secretary or Brigadier is not.

If you put money into a bank, you wouldn't care how the bank invests, loans, etc. All you want is that the bank guarantees your returns.

So it is correct to Myrna to say Temasek is the investment arm.

However that aside, all is well when the company is making profits. Just in 1 year alone, Temasek has lost >$50 billion. As in all corporate audits, people are asking how it happened.

And the baseline of all these talks is:- Where is the accountability? Who is responsible for these huge losses?

In all fairness, the people have a right to know. Because these losses will have to be recovered, or recouped. And I foresee the monies will come from the people in terms of higher taxes and fees. Because this is the easiest way to recouping losses.

And saying that Temasek is a company doesn't make sense. In an actual company setting, the CEO will be the first to be fired for incurring such huge losses. But we don't see that happening, do we?

Kaffein,notice how the government and Temasek flip-flop each other to the point that confuse people to stop asking question.

When government is asked who is responsible and accountable to Temasek's loss, the government say that they have no control over Temasek's investment, so is the government responsible or Temasek responsible for the loss ? The government is pushing the loss to Temasek.

Now when Temasek is asked about the loss, they push it to the government saying that they don't manage it only investing the monies from the government, and that Temasek is not responsible for the loss.

In the end, amazingly NO-ONE in the government and GLC are responsible for anything ! They only responsible when they make money and give themselves millions, but when they lose money, the finger but to no-one but external factor like economy and citizenS .

If you can't control what you supposedly "own", then you don't own it.

Reality: Money or property taken by or given to the state is a sunken cost. You give up all control and thus no longer own it. It doesn't matter if the private property is money (tax) or your son's life (conscription) or your time (being forced to associate with the government after receiving a "computer generated letter which requires no reply")

In all my postings, one of my key principles is to avoid tarnishing anyone personally, and the least for indiscretion in their private live...

Headphones

Electronics

ebay

Disclaimer

As owner of this blog, I bear no responsibility to what other bloggers may post. I encourage all to speak freely without indulging in libel or defamatory content. Anyone who feels offended by any posting can email me and I will remove the offending article if appropriate. Contact me at redbeansg@yahoo.com